Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Harvard Business Review: Women want to work from home too much, so don't let them.

  1. Top | #31
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,141
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    17,848
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    No. None of it is me. I didn't write an article...
    Nah, you just freaked out about it, and started this stupid thread to vent about your fears, thinking you might get sympathy for your possible abuse at the hands of that mean "leftie". Where's Swiz when you need him?
    All you, dude.

  2. Top | #32
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,321
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,264
    Rep Power
    87
    Apparently, there are some posters who do not understand how a requirement may provide cover for an employee, so here is an example.

    An employee wants to go into work 3 days a week but because it is volitional instead of mandatory, the partner places undue stress on that person to stay home. If the 3 days are mandatory, the employee's partner is now more accepting and helpful..

  3. Top | #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    No. None of it is me. I didn't write an article...
    Nah, you just freaked out about it, and started this stupid thread to vent about your fears, thinking you might get sympathy for your possible abuse at the hands of that mean "leftie". Where's Swiz when you need him?
    All you, dude.
    I'm certain you don't know what "freaking out" means. Nor am I afraid that this article will influence my workplace's wfh policy. Nor do I think I've been "abused". Nor have I ever expected or wanted "sympathy" for exposing sloppy arguments, badly evidenced, and influenced by ideological bias.

  4. Top | #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,597
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Apparently, there are some posters who do not understand how a requirement may provide cover for an employee, so here is an example.

    An employee wants to go into work 3 days a week but because it is volitional instead of mandatory, the partner places undue stress on that person to stay home. If the 3 days are mandatory, the employee's partner is now more accepting and helpful..
    I suppose it could be seen as a benefit in that it allows a person to avoid the hard work of correcting the faults in an unhealthy interpersonal relationship.

    So, I agree that some (small) number of employees might find that a benefit--though I feel it should be incumbent upon those employees to simply lie to their unsupportive partner about the mandatory nature of going in to work (and this gain the 'cover' benefit anyway) than to force the entire workplace to attend certain days where they otherwise would not have attended.

  5. Top | #35
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    4,006
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    9,716
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post

    No, it's misleading, and grossly so.

    The author begins the article with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by HBR
    As U.S. states and the federal government start to roll back Covid-19 restrictions, and companies and workers start to firm up their office return plans, one point is becoming clear: The future of working from home (WFH) is hybrid. In research with my colleagues Jose Maria Barrero and Steven J. Davis, as well as discussions with hundreds of managers across different industries, I’m finding that about 70% of firms, from tiny companies to massive multinationals like Google, Citi, and HSBC, plan to move to some form of hybrid working.

    But another question is controversial: How much choice should workers have in the matter?
    He then goes on to talk about employees, not women or men or other gender presentations. He's talking about all employees, not just the female kind.

    He says that many managers are passionate that their employees should determine their own schedule, but 32% of employees say they never want to return to working in the office, while 21% say they never want to spend another day working from home. He says that allowing the employees to choose their own work from home schedules raises two concerns: the difficulty of managing a hybrid team and people feeling excluded, and the risk to diversity. It is only then that the author makes any sort of distinction between male and female employees, saying that "among college graduates with young children women want to work from home full-time almost 50% more than men." And then he goes right back to talking about employees in general.

    He presents a hypothetical in which "[s]ingle young men could all choose to come into the office five days a week and rocket up the firm, while employees with young children, particularly women, who choose to WFH for several days each week are held back". Note that he says "particularly" women, not exclusively women. He calls it a diversity loss and a legal time bomb for companies. He says that for these reasons he has started advising firms that managers should decide which days their team should WFH.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor
    The author backflipped on his earlier recommendation of letting employees choose how much to work from home, because he thinks women's personal autonomy leads to troubling non-diverse outcomes, and he is willing to sacrifice that autonomy on the altar of diversity.
    He said nothing of the sort. That's just you adding your own spin to a pretty straightforward discussion of teamwork and basic management of employees.

    I was able to work from home for the first time in my life starting in 2020, due to the change in culture brought about by COVID. It was wonderful. Now the diversicrats think employers should go back to removing some of that freedom and autonomy because women make different decisions to men, and those decisions must be corrected.
    Ah, so this is all about you wanting to work from home too much.

    Got it.
    It's amazing how you pretty much repeat what Metaphor has said, adding some detail (which is in the link anyway), and then seem to think it contradicts Metaphor's claim.

  6. Top | #36
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    4,006
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    9,716
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by prideandfall View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Employee autonomy is valuable to employees. In fact, low autonomy often correlates with low job satisfaction.

    I like working from home and I object to bullshit reasons for that choice to be taken away or reduced. That women want more days working from home is a bullshit reason to reduce employee autonomy and take away WFH choice.
    so, given that your posting history on this forum that isn't your gender-based hobby horse is notably pro-corporate and blindly in favor of the cultural worship of predatory capitalism, how do you square these two ideas?

    employee autonomy is directly in opposition to corporatethink, which staunchly demands total control over every second of an employee's life and only begrudgingly concedes a couple hours per day for sleep and biological needs.
    it seems like getting to tell you when and where you work, with or without a valid reason, would be entirely within the scope of what you support.
    Seems to me you have a pretty deranged view of what Metaphor would think, given his posting history.

  7. Top | #37
    Aethiopian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,407
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,545
    Rep Power
    53
    I feel like I'm in an inverted universe right now. I find myself agreeing with people I've disagreed with on almost every other topic. I need a drink.

  8. Top | #38
    Contributor Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    5,536
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    10,076
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post

    No, it's misleading, and grossly so.

    The author begins the article with this:



    He then goes on to talk about employees, not women or men or other gender presentations. He's talking about all employees, not just the female kind.

    He says that many managers are passionate that their employees should determine their own schedule, but 32% of employees say they never want to return to working in the office, while 21% say they never want to spend another day working from home. He says that allowing the employees to choose their own work from home schedules raises two concerns: the difficulty of managing a hybrid team and people feeling excluded, and the risk to diversity. It is only then that the author makes any sort of distinction between male and female employees, saying that "among college graduates with young children women want to work from home full-time almost 50% more than men." And then he goes right back to talking about employees in general.

    He presents a hypothetical in which "[s]ingle young men could all choose to come into the office five days a week and rocket up the firm, while employees with young children, particularly women, who choose to WFH for several days each week are held back". Note that he says "particularly" women, not exclusively women. He calls it a diversity loss and a legal time bomb for companies. He says that for these reasons he has started advising firms that managers should decide which days their team should WFH.



    He said nothing of the sort. That's just you adding your own spin to a pretty straightforward discussion of teamwork and basic management of employees.

    I was able to work from home for the first time in my life starting in 2020, due to the change in culture brought about by COVID. It was wonderful. Now the diversicrats think employers should go back to removing some of that freedom and autonomy because women make different decisions to men, and those decisions must be corrected.
    Ah, so this is all about you wanting to work from home too much.

    Got it.
    It's amazing how you pretty much repeat what Metaphor has said, adding some detail (which is in the link anyway), and then seem to think it contradicts Metaphor's claim.
    What do you think Metaphor was claiming prior to my post?

    And why do you think I added that detail from the OP article?

  9. Top | #39
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,420
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,172
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Apparently, there are some posters who do not understand how a requirement may provide cover for an employee, so here is an example.

    An employee wants to go into work 3 days a week but because it is volitional instead of mandatory, the partner places undue stress on that person to stay home. If the 3 days are mandatory, the employee's partner is now more accepting and helpful..
    Goalposts!!

    That wasn't the point here.

  10. Top | #40
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,321
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,264
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Apparently, there are some posters who do not understand how a requirement may provide cover for an employee, so here is an example.

    An employee wants to go into work 3 days a week but because it is volitional instead of mandatory, the partner places undue stress on that person to stay home. If the 3 days are mandatory, the employee's partner is now more accepting and helpful..
    Goalposts!!

    That wasn't the point here.
    Actually, it a point in the discussion in the thread. I realize it may not have been your point, but this thread is not about you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •